W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:11:54 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+esb=mmyh=SG2BiLkmVa0gq1qGMEYBdBq6wcxCV5hs+=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

> On 8/5/11 8:50 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 08:22 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/4/11 11:47 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>>>
>>>> Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more
>>>> specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An example of those is
>>>> Progress Events. This is done for no reason than political as far as I
>>>> can tell. This undermines and is disrespectful the work of the HTML
>>>> Working Group. Unless the WebApps comes up with a set of good reasons of
>>>> why this is done and convince the HTML Working Group, those references
>>>> must be changed in order to publish the documents properly and respect
>>>> the work of the HTML Working Group,
>>>>
>>> Philippe,
>>>
>>> Re the specific case of the Progress Events spec - when it was last
>>> published it included non-normative references to both version of HTML:
>>>
>>>    http://www.w3.org/TR/progress-**events/#references<http://www.w3.org/TR/progress-events/#references>
>>>
>>> May we do that again? (I interpret that to mean the W3C has a fixed
>>> version of HTML and the WHATWG has a tip-of-the-tree version of HTML and
>>> as such, I don't think it  'disses the HTMLWG nor the W3C.)
>>>
>> Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? What
>> does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group? There are features
>> in the WHATWG version that got rejected in the HTML Working Group.
>>
>
> I agree with the requirement for a single normative reference for HTML and
> that it should be the HTMLWG's version.
>

I agree. The W3C HTMLWG is the only reference that is viable as far as the
larger standards community is concerned, and as far as Samsung is concerned.
Perhaps it is acceptable to reference WHATWG versions as an expedient in the
near term, however, that should be avoided unless there is no alternative.

Glenn (speaking as Samsung rep. to WebApps WG)
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 15:12:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT